Getting women to care about current events

I think Tasha Kheiriddin summed up very well the consuming condition of motherhood, especially in the early years. It is the healthy, loving response to our newborns we take for granted, until illness or evil circumvent it.

I too have been a political junkie from a young age. I doubted my own maternal instincts until I, and my family, needed them. But now, it is this profound concern for my children that has caused me to again turn my focus to the society that my children are becoming a part of.

The alternative is to remain in a rabbit hole carved from indifference and self-centredness rather than love. I’m glad Tasha Kheiriddin came back out. She is absolutely right to state, “all the social engineering in the world will not force women to care more about politics.”

To put it bluntly, some groups are counting on women to remain in the rabbit hole while they re-engineer society to their own image. This is why I emerged from the hole, a mother bear.

Johanne Brownrigg, Ottawa.

As a woman, I know too well how uninformed some of my female peers and I often joke with my husband about how women shouldn’t vote. Some of the suggested reasons for the gap do make sense: women are busy. With children to care for, I often don’t get to the paper until they are all in bed, whereas my husband has the opportunity all day.

We are also tuned in to different types of news. We both read the National Post, and it often intrigues me how we are attracted to totally different stories. In addition, I am home much of the day, listening to my children tell me about their pet mice and the crafts they are making. My husband drives a lot for work, so he is able to listen to the news on the radio more than I do.

I’ll bet the respondents to the survey don’t know nearly as much about the antics of my pet mice as I do. The surveys just aren’t asking the right questions.

Donna Jordan, Chilliwack, B.C.

What surprises me more than the National Post giving this U.K. study (“which found consumption of news is ‘very much a masculine action, particularly in Canada, Norway, U.K. and U.S.’ ”) space, is that someone as well informed as Tasha Kheiriddin, whose perspective on politics and gender I often concur with, gives this disingenuous, scurrilous, sexist study any serious response whatsoever.

The only difference between Gilad Shalit and those who will be kidnapped because he was released — and you can be sure that there will be others and other attempts — is that we know Gilad Shalit’s name and his story. We don’t know how the others will be treated. How long they will be held. Or how many of those we release will have blood on their hands.

Mr. Shalit is lucky to be back alive, but it is nothing personal when I say that trading for him was a mistake. One for one, OK. Five for one, maybe. But 1,000 for one is just wrong. Israeli society debated this point the entire time he was held, something that is lost on the readers of this newspaper, apparently, in their rush to turn Mr. Shalit into some sort of icon and fundraising tool.

Jillian Pinkus, Toronto.

Turf wars among ethnic organizations are always news. But it seems that when the dispute is between Jewish organizations, it is always worthy of front-page status.

Be that as it may, when the publisher of the The Jewish Tribune (published by B’nai Brith Canada) uses Gilad Shalit’s visit this fall as an opportunity to pursue what appears to be a personal grudge (as noted perspicaciously by reporter Joseph Bream in mentioning the failure of Josh Cooper, the CEO of the Jewish National Fund (JFN) Canada, to become a columnist in the Tribune), it is particularly chafing.

What possible good for the Jewish community, or higher purpose, could be achieved by the Tribune criticizing Mr. Shalit’s speaking tour under the auspices of the JNF? But in an unintended way, given the backlash to the article, it does address the question: “Who speaks for Canada’s Jewish community?”

Thankfully Mr. Dimant does not speak for me and I daresay most Jews. Kudos to B’nai Brith International for saying that Mr. Shalit “is an honourary member for whom it has the ‘deepest respect.’ ”

Ron Hoffman, VP JNF Canada, Toronto.

In an article discussing political rivalries between Canada’s two leading Jewish advocacy organizations — B’nai Brith Canada and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) — Shimon Fogel, chief executive of CIJA, made scurrilous remarks against the Lions and Rotary clubs. We extend our apologies to both organizations and commend them for the tremendous work they do in the areas of social activism and service as well as their dedication and commitment to making the world a better place, paralleling much of the work that B’nai Brith does in its non-advocacy role.

Both clubs serve a most important role in the community and their volunteers should be lauded for the effort, not vilified.

I agree with Professor Herbert Grubel that evaluating the costs and benefits of immigration should be based on analysis and evidence. However, his argument that the net labour market benefit of immigration to Canada is small (“the migration effect of $35-billion”) is not reasonable. He bases this number by assuming the effect for Canada is one-tenth that of the United States. But the skill profile of immigrants to the two countries is quite different.

Canada, with its emphasis on the point system and economic immigrants, admits a much higher proportion of skilled immigrants than does the United States, with its traditional emphasis on family unification. Studies show that relatively low-skilled workers do indeed have a negative effect on the wages of low-skilled workers. But immigration of higher-skilled workers has a positive effect as these new arrivals bring complementary skills to, and help fill shortages in, the Canadian labour market. Thus there is every reason to believe that the net economic benefit of immigration to Canada is vastly greater than suggested by Prof. Grubel.

I stand with letter-writer E.W. Bopp with respect to the use of “Confederation Day” versus “Canada Day.” Perhaps, however, we ought to rethink this country’s foundation and its beginning as a “dominion,” the word used in The Dominion of Canada as expressed in the Constitution Act 1867, preamble and section 3. “Dominion” remains Canada’s official title.

So if we are going to change the name of “Canada Day,” let’s call it “Dominion Day.”

Too many patients and families are unaware of their rights in their health care. Many are intimidated by the medical profession and many fear saying no to a treatment-just in case-even though they know in their hearts that their loved one is dying.

Always pick one member of the family to be spokesperson and have the staff put the name on the chart with a contact number. If you have concerns, contact the patient advocate. You can insist on a family meeting with the doctors and the social worker on the unit. And don’t forget the hospital chaplain. You don’t have to be religious to access that care. A hospital chaplain works with the medical team and will advocate on behalf of the patient, reflecting the patient’s desire.

We have reached a point in science and medicine where we must ask this question more often: “Just because we can, should we?”

It speaks volumes that the two letter writers (a civil servant in the employ of the Department of National Defence and a retired member of the RCMP) defending the RCMP break and enter to remove private property “in the interest of public safety” were both active or retired members of state agencies.

The truth is that this action was more about the balance of power between civilians and the entrenched interests of our state agencies. This incident, like a dead canary in the coalmine, is a clear indicator that our democracy is in peril. Even in a liberal democracy where the powers of the state are supposed to emanate from the will of the people, power itself is as intoxicating as it is addictive and leaves those in power seeking even more of the same.

That Canadians will stand still for such Charter rights transgressions in the mistaken belief that the state is keeping them safe is a sign that perhaps that Canadians are no longer deserving of a democracy.

Robert S. Sciuk, Oshawa, Ont.

Difficult question about genocides

Re: There Was Only One ‘Holocaust,’ letters to the editor, July 4; There Were Other Holocausts, letter to the editor, July 3; Many Things Anger Readers, letters to the editor, July 2.

After reading the National Post’s over the last few days, the letters on genocide and the “Holocaust” have left me a bit puzzled. According to one letter writer, the Holodomor (Stalin), and The Great Leap Forward (Mao) don’t qualify as genocides because the victims and the perpetrators were the same race. I wonder if my maternal grandfather, A Ukrainian who survived the Holodomor and escaped from Stalin’s state-enforced starvation, would concur that it wasn’t genocide?

The same grandfather, who was imprisoned by the Nazis while working his way across Europe, survived that as well, but the tattoo he was given was an awful reminder of something he refused to talk about. Without wishing to appear obtuse, was my grandfather a “Holocaust survivor” or does the word not apply to non-Jewish victims of the Nazis?

Another letter-writer says the distinction between the Holocaust and other mass horrors is that the former was “evil and systematically carried out with extreme precision.” Was the Holodomor not evil enough? Was Mao lackadaisical in his methods?

Look at it this way: Imagine being told repeatedly that the millions of Jews killed by Hitler is somehow more significant than the millions of Ukrainians killed by Stalin. The minute a person sees their race as being more important than others, you’re on the same road the Nazis were. Is “Never Forget” a statement or a suggestion?

While he may not have realized it, the nub of the commentary by Chris Selley lies in this sentence: “… it’s the implication that students should finish high school not having heard a single guest speaker who wasn’t a conservative Catholic.”

The Catholic Church is apolitical. The Church’s business is morals, and so it only reacts when morals and politics intersect — when laws are enacted which do not promote social good. Use of “conservative” in “conservative Catholic” underlines the misunderstanding that exists. The question is not whether the guest speakers are conservatives — it is whether they are faithful to the tenets of the Catholic faith.

The role of Catholic schools is to promote the common good, the good of all that is very thoroughly explained in the Church’s innumerable documents on social justice. Reading just a few could clear up much misunderstanding.

David A. Hogg, Toronto.

Chris Selley’s column has too many non sequiturs. He writes that Justin Trudeau is a “practising Catholic” because he was married in a Catholic church and the guests all received communion. Those actions do not make one a “practising” Catholic. Mr. Selley then goes on with that well-known series of grunts and groans about how it is unfair that taxes go to just Catholic schools and how this must cease.

Let’s be clear: Catholic schools must — to be Catholic — teach Catholic doctrine. Mr. Trudeau is well-known for his pro-abortion and pro same-sex marriage stance, even if he does not reference them when he speaks to certain groups.

Mr. Selley fails to say who he would exclude from giving a talk to students in any school. Would he allow a neo-Nazi to speak? A member of the Taliban? If not, why not? After all, he seems to be OK with speakers who favour abortion at any trimester. One must be consistent.

Charlie Cahill, Ottawa.

So Chris Selley wants us Catholics to get more with the times, eh? Does that mean he wants us to become more self-obsessed, selfish and shallow like everyone else in these “times”?

No thanks, I’ll stick with my Church. We’ll outlast his fadish society like it has a thousand other societies. And by the way, Mr. Selley, Catholics pay taxes as well, but not to have a politician of inferior quality spoonfeed pablum to our children.

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.